Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0027RuleADAMS ML26086A409; ML26086A412

NRC renews AP1000 design certification by direct final rule, adopting Revision 20, 91 FR 65091

The rule folds Vogtle Units 3 and 4 changes into Westinghouse's certified design and takes effect Dec. 28 unless the NRC receives significant adverse comments by Nov. 13 in Docket NRC-2026-2377.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
7 cited

Summary

“Because the NRC considers this action to be non-controversial, the NRC is using the ‘direct final rule procedure’ for this rule,” the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote in a rule published October 14, 2026, at 91 FR 65091 [1]. The rule amends appendix D to 10 CFR part 52 to renew the AP1000 standard design certification for 40 years and to incorporate Revision 20 of Westinghouse Electric Company’s design control document, which brings in changes made during the licensing, construction and operation of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 [1]. It takes effect December 28, 2026, unless significant adverse comments arrive by November 13 in Docket NRC-2026-2377 [1].

What the record shows

Two revisions, one appendix. The revised section III.A incorporates by reference AP1000 DCD Revision 20, document APP-GW-GL-702, Revision 2, while keeping Revision 19, dated June 13, 2011, and its 2021 supplemental information [1]. The rule explains that several combined license holders were licensed to Revision 19, so it remains part of their licensing basis; under section III.B, future applicants may reference either [1]. Westinghouse submitted the renewal request by letter dated March 27, 2026 [1].

What Revision 20 contains. The rule describes Revision 20 as “a current, construction-validated design” [1]. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, which received the Vogtle 3 and 4 combined licenses (NPF-91 and NPF-92) on February 10, 2012, filed over 180 license amendment requests during licensing, construction and operation, and made numerous Tier 2 departures that did not need prior NRC approval [1]. The NRC’s verification review found nothing new in Revision 20 requiring further technical review; every change had either been approved already or entered through a process that needs no approval [1]. That finding is the stated basis for skipping a proposed-rule-first sequence [1]. A final safety evaluation report on the renewal was issued in August 2026 [1].

A new change process for Tier 2* information. Section VIII.B.6 is rewritten so an applicant referencing the AP1000 may depart from Tier 2* information without NRC approval unless the departure trips one of nine listed conditions [1]. Those conditions include changing the reactor coolant pump from a canned motor to another type, adversely affecting containment debris limits, changing the design of steel faceplates or tie bars in the steel-concrete module walls, or raising the demand-to-capacity ratio of a critical structural section [1]. The process comes from Vogtle: Southern Nuclear requested it in LAR-17-037 on December 21, 2017, and the NRC granted it as Amendments 142 and 141 on September 20, 2018 [1].

Duration. Revised section VII says the appendix “may be referenced for a period of 40 years from December 28, 2026,” and stays valid for an applicant or licensee who references it until the application is withdrawn or the license expires [1].

The environmental assessment. The NRC issued an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact rather than an environmental impact statement, relying on the generic finding in 10 CFR 51.32(b)(2) [1]. Westinghouse kept the severe accident mitigation design alternatives analysis from Revision 19, covering 15 alternatives, and concluded none had become cost beneficial [1]. The NRC found Westinghouse had not applied current dollar values, so staff reran the analysis at $7,300 per person-rem under NUREG-1530, Revision 1, with other cost parameters inflated to 2026 dollars [1]. The conclusions did not change [1]. New section VI.B.7 says future applications relying on Revision 20 “will need to inflate the appropriate cost parameters” [1].

Executive order findings. The rule calls itself a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs found it not significant [1]. The NRC placed it outside E.O. 14270’s conditional sunset requirement because design certifications are part of its permitting regime [1].

Where it sits in the process

The AP1000 was first certified January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4464), amended December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82079), and extended by five years in a September 22, 2021, direct final rule (86 FR 52593) [1]. A July 2, 2025, rule (90 FR 28869) replaced the 15-year term for certifications with 40 years, which pushed the AP1000’s expiration to February 27, 2046 [1]. This site’s July report on the NRC’s licensing overhaul covered a separate proposal on 40-year operating license renewals.

Under 10 CFR 52.57(a), a renewal application may be filed no more than 36 months before expiration, which would have meant waiting until February 27, 2043 [3]. Westinghouse requested an exemption on April 7, 2026; staff docketed it April 27 and granted it June 24 [3]. The exemption notice gave as one reason that “the AP1000 design is the only certified design that has been built to completion in the United States” [3]. Power Engineering reported in April that Westinghouse had asked for approval within calendar year 2026 [7].

What happens if someone files an adverse comment by Nov. 13?

The rule defines a significant adverse comment as one explaining why the rule would be inappropriate or ineffective without a change [1]. If one arrives, the NRC will publish a withdrawal and address the comments in a later final rule built on the companion proposed rule at 91 FR 65133, without a second comment period unless the text changes significantly [1, 2]. Absent such comments, the rule takes effect December 28 [1].

Commenters who need Westinghouse’s proprietary or security-related material must first ask Westinghouse, and must ask the NRC within 10 days of publication, which by this report’s count is October 24 [1]. The NRC then has 10 days to decide whether a requester has shown a legitimate need; comments based on that material are due 25 days after access or at the close of the comment period, whichever is later [1].

Which pending applications reference the AP1000?

One is already at the environmental stage. On October 9 the NRC published a draft environmental impact statement for Fermi America’s combined license application for four AP1000 units, Project Matador Nuclear Units 1-4, in Carson County, Texas, next to the Energy Department’s Pantex Plant (Docket ID NRC-2026-0100) [4]. The staff’s preliminary recommendation is to issue the license, contingent on the safety review, and comments on the draft are due November 23, 2026 [4]. That draft was prepared by the applicant under NRC supervision in a NEPA pilot program [4].

What the record does not show

The rule does not say which revision the Project Matador application references, and the Fermi notice does not mention Revision 20 [1, 4]. Whether Fermi America or other applicants will amend their filings to reference the new revision is not addressed in either document.

The amendment counts also differ. The rule says Southern Nuclear submitted “over 180” amendment requests; the NRC’s news release the same day refers to nearly 200 approved license amendments [1, 5]. Neither document reconciles the two.

The rule leaves untouched the licensing basis of existing holders licensed to Revision 19 and says it imposes no new requirements on them [1]. It does not say whether the NRC expects those holders to move to Revision 20.

The cost-benefit update is limited. The rule reports that the sensitivity analysis did not change the earlier conclusions, but the Federal Register text does not publish the resulting dollar figures for the 15 alternatives [1]. The analysis does not address site-specific environmental effects, which are left to individual applications [1].

Finally, the direct final rule track depends on what commenters do. As of publication, none of the NRC documents identified any party opposing the renewal [1, 2, 3].

Positions on the record

Westinghouse framed the update as a shift to a single reference plant. Nuclear News reported in April that the submittal would make Vogtle 4 the standard AP1000 reference plant for U.S. deployment, and quoted interim chief executive Dan Sumner: “For our customers, the ability to deploy a standard plant based on an as-built and operating unit without the technology risk associated with a first of a kind, never-built design is a game changer for unlocking fleet-scale deployment” [6]. The same report tied the filing to Westinghouse’s aim of having 10 new AP1000s under construction by 2030 [6].

The NRC’s April announcement, as Nuclear News quoted it, placed the filing within a “broader effort to streamline design certification updates and combined license application reviews for reactors referencing approved designs” [6]. The agency’s March 9 paper, SECY-26-0034, had told the Commission to expect the application and laid out a plan to fold in Vogtle’s as-built changes [1]. The October 14 news release says future applicants can reference the updated design instead of seeking separate approval for changes the NRC has already evaluated, and that they still need approval for site-specific environmental, safety and security matters [5].

No intervenor, state or public interest group appears in the rulemaking record as an objector. The rule’s own test will decide whether that holds: one comment the NRC judges significant and adverse by November 13 would withdraw the December 28 effective date [1].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When does the AP1000 design certification renewal take effect?
December 28, 2026, unless the NRC receives significant adverse comments by November 13, 2026. If it does, the NRC will publish a withdrawal and finish the action through the companion proposed rule [1, 2].
How long is the renewed AP1000 certification valid?
Appendix D may be referenced for 40 years from December 28, 2026, which the NRC's news release describes as through 2066 [1, 5]. Before the renewal, the certification ran to February 27, 2046 [3].
Can a new AP1000 applicant still reference Revision 19?
Yes. The rule keeps Revision 19 in appendix D because several combined license holders are licensed to it, and future applicants may reference either revision [1].
Does the AP1000 renewal approve any new reactor site?
No. The environmental assessment states that the renewal does not authorize siting, construction or operation of any facility; site-specific impacts are left to individual license applications [1, 5].
How do I comment on the AP1000 direct final rule?
Submit comments under Docket ID NRC-2026-2377 at regulations.gov by November 13, 2026. Comments on the direct final rule also count as comments on the companion proposed rule [1, 2].

Note on sourcing

This report rests on the NRC's Federal Register documents of July 2, October 9 and October 14, 2026, the NRC's October 14 news release, and April 2026 trade reporting by Nuclear News and Power Engineering. The direct final rule counts 'over 180' Vogtle license amendment requests; the NRC's news release describes nearly 200 approved amendments. The two figures are reported as each document states them and have not been reconciled. The October 24 deadline to request access to proprietary or security-related material is this report's count of 10 days from publication; the rule states the window but not a calendar date. Neither the rule nor the Fermi America notice says which revision of the AP1000 design control document the Project Matador application references. No organization had filed a public objection to the renewal in the documents this report draws on; the comment period opened on the day of publication.

Sources

  1. AP1000 Design Certification Renewal, direct final rule and issuance of environmental assessment, 91 FR 65091 (FR Doc. 2026-21030), RIN 3150-AL70U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 14, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  2. AP1000 Design Certification Renewal, proposed rule and environmental assessment, 91 FR 65133 (FR Doc. 2026-21031)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 14, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  3. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC; AP1000 Design Certification Renewal; Exemption, 91 FR 40596 (FR Doc. 2026-13386)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 2, 2026 · govinfo.gov
  4. Fermi America LLC; Project Matador Nuclear Units 1-4; Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 91 FR 64702 (FR Doc. 2026-20742)U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 9, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  5. NRC Updates AP1000 Design Certification, Streamlines Future Reactor Licensing, News Release No. 26-080U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 14, 2026 · nrc.gov
  6. Westinghouse submits AP1000 design revision to NRCAmerican Nuclear Society (Nuclear Newswire), April 7, 2026 · ans.org
  7. Westinghouse seeks to update AP1000 design certification with Vogtle lessons built inPower Engineering, April 7, 2026 · power-eng.com

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0019 · Report · 2 shared headingsNRC notices NextEra-Dominion application for indirect transfer of Dominion nuclear licenses, NRC-2026-4060
  2. No. 0016 · Report · 2 shared headingsNRC sets Sept. 22 mandatory hearing on Long Mott Xe-100 construction permit, 91 FR 53900
  3. No. 0009 · Report · 2 shared headingsNRC staff issues draft EA and finding of no significant impact for Duane Arnold restart, 91 FR 48951